HotFreeBooks.com
Noteworthy Families (Modern Science)
by Francis Galton and Edgar Schuster
1  2     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

Transcriber's Note: In this plain text version, italics have been rendered using underscores; both bold and small-caps using all-caps (these never occur near each other, so no confusion should arise); and the surnames of the subjects, which were in bold sans-serif in the original, have been rendered in all-caps with the # symbol on either side. The underscores have been removed from a few italicized abbreviations where they were felt to be a distraction.



NOTEWORTHY FAMILIES

(MODERN SCIENCE)

An Index to Kinships in Near Degrees between Persons Whose Achievements Are Honourable, and Have Been Publicly Recorded

by

FRANCIS GALTON, D.C.L., F.R.S., HON. D.Sc (CAMB.)

and

EDGAR SCHUSTER Galton Research Fellow in National Eugenics

VOL I of the Publications of the Eugenics Record Office of the University of London



London John Murray, Albemarle Street

1906



CONTENTS

PAGE I. INTRODUCTORY NOTE vii

PREFACE ix

CHAPTER

GENERAL REMARKS ix

II. NOTEWORTHINESS xi

III. HIGHEST ORDER OF ABILITY xiv

IV. PROPORTION OF NOTEWORTHIES TO THE GENERALITY xviii

V. NOTEWORTHINESS AS A STATISTICAL MEASURE OF ABILITY xx

VI. NOMENCLATURE OF KINSHIPS xxvi

VII. NUMBER OF KINSFOLK IN EACH DEGREE xxviii

VIII. NUMBER OF NOTEWORTHY KINSMEN IN EACH DEGREE xxxiii

IX. MARKED AND UNMARKED NOTEWORTHINESS xxxv

X. CONCLUSIONS xxxix

NOTEWORTHY FAMILIES: OF SIXTY-SIX F.R.S.'S WHO WERE LIVING IN 1904 1

APPENDIX: FATHERS OF SOME OF THE SIXTY-SIX F.R.S.'S CLASSIFIED BY THEIR OCCUPATIONS 80

INDEX 85



INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The brief biographical notices of sixty-six noteworthy families printed in this book are compiled from replies to a circular issued by me in the spring of 1904 to all living Fellows of the Royal Society. Those that first arrived were discussed in "Nature," August 11, 1904.

On Mr. Schuster's appointment by the University of London, in October, 1904, to the Research Fellowship in National Eugenics, all my materials were placed in his hand. He was to select from them those families that contained at least three noteworthy kinsmen, to compile lists of their achievements on the model of the above-mentioned memoir, to verify statements as far as possible, and to send what he wrote for final approval by the authors of the several replies.

This was done by Mr. Schuster. The results were then submitted by him as an appendix to his Report to the Senate last summer.

After preliminary arrangements, it was determined by the Senate that the list of Noteworthy Families should be published according to the title-page of this book, I having agreed to contribute the preface, Mr. Schuster's time being fully occupied with work in another branch of Eugenics.

So the list of "Noteworthy Families" in this volume is entirely the work of Mr. Schuster, except in respect to some slight alterations and additions for which I am responsible, as well as for all the rest.

FRANCIS GALTON.



PREFACE



CHAPTER I.—GENERAL REMARKS.

This volume is the first instalment of a work that admits of wide extension. Its object is to serve as an index to the achievements of those families which, having been exceptionally productive of noteworthy persons, seem especially suitable for biographical investigation.

The facts that are given here are avowedly bald and imperfect; nevertheless, they lead to certain important conclusions. They show, for example, that a considerable proportion of the noteworthy members in a population spring from comparatively few families.

The material upon which this book is based is mainly derived from the answers made to a circular sent to all the Fellows of the Royal Society whose names appear in its Year Book for 1904.

The questions were not unreasonably numerous, nor were they inquisitorial; nevertheless, it proved that not one-half of those who were addressed cared to answer them. It was, of course, desirable to know a great deal more than could have been asked for or published with propriety, such as the proneness of particular families to grave constitutional disease. Indeed, the secret history of a family is quite as important in its eugenic aspect as its public history; but one cannot expect persons to freely unlock their dark closets and drag forth family skeletons into the light of day. It was necessary in such a work as this to submit to considerable limitations, while turning to the fullest account whatever could be stated openly without giving the smallest offence to any of the persons concerned.

One limitation against which I still chafe in vain is the impracticability of ascertaining so apparently simple a matter as the number of kinsfolk of each person in each specific degree of near kinship, without troublesome solicitations. It was specially asked for in the circular, but by no means generally answered, even by those who replied freely to other questions. The reason must in some cases have been mere oversight or pure inertia, but to a large extent it was due to ignorance, for I was astonished to find many to whom the number of even their near kinsfolk was avowedly unknown. Emigration, foreign service, feuds between near connections, differences of social position, faintness of family interest, each produced their several effects, with the result, as I have reason to believe, that hardly one-half of the persons addressed were able, without first making inquiry of others, to reckon the number of their uncles, adult nephews, and first cousins. The isolation of some few from even their nearest relatives was occasionally so complete that the number of their brothers was unknown. It will be seen that this deficiency of information admits of being supplied indirectly, to a considerable degree.

The collection of even the comparatively small amount of material now in hand proved much more troublesome than was anticipated, but as the object and limitations of inquiries like this become generally understood, and as experience accumulates, the difficulty of similar work in the future will presumably lessen.



CHAPTER II.—NOTEWORTHINESS.

The Fellowship of the Royal Society is a distinction highly appreciated by all members of the scientific world. Fifteen men are annually selected by its council out of some sixty candidates, each candidate being proposed by six, and usually by more, Fellows in a certificate containing his qualifications. The candidates themselves are representatives of a multitude of persons to whom the title would be not only an honour but a material advantage. The addition of the letters "F.R.S." to the names of applicants to any post, however remotely connected with science, is a valuable testimonial and a recognised aid towards success, so the number of those who desire it is very large. Experience shows that no special education, other than self-instruction, is really required to attain this honour. Access to laboratories, good tuition, and so forth, are doubtless helpful, so far that many have obtained the distinction through such aid who could not otherwise have done so, but they are far from being all-important factors of success. The facts that lie patent before the eyes of every medical man, engineer, and the members of most professions, afford ample material for researches that would command the attention of the scientific world if viewed with intelligence and combined by a capable mind.

It is so difficult to compare the number of those who might have succeeded with the number of those who do, that the following illustration may perhaps be useful: By adding to the 53 registration counties in England, the 12 in Wales, the 33 in Scotland and the 32 in Ireland, an aggregate of 130 is obtained. The English counties, and the others in a lesser degree, have to be ransacked in order to supply the fifteen annually-elected Fellows; so it requires more than eight of these counties to yield an annual supply of a single Fellow to the Royal Society.

It is therefore contended that the Fellows of the Royal Society have sufficient status to be reckoned "noteworthy," and, such being the case, they are a very convenient body for inquiries like these. They are trained to, and have sympathy with, scientific investigations; biographical notices are published of them during their lifetime, notably in the convenient compendium "Who's Who," to which there will be frequent occasion to refer; and they are more or less known to one another, either directly or through friends, making it comparatively easy to satisfy the occasional doubts which may arise from their communications. It was easier and statistically safer to limit the inquiry to those Fellows who were living when the circulars were issued—that is, to those whose names and addresses appear in the "Royal Society's Year Book" of 1904. Some of them have since died, full of honours, having done their duty to their generation; others have since been elected; so the restriction given here to the term "Modern Science" must be kept in mind.

Another and a strong motive for selecting the F.R.S. as subjects of inquiry was that so long ago as 1863-1864 I had investigated the antecedents of 180 of those who were then living, who were further distinguished by one or other of certain specified and recognised honours. My conclusions were briefly described in a Friday evening lecture, February 27, 1864, before the Royal Institution. These, together with the data on which they were founded, were published in the same year in my book "English Men of Science." Readers who desire fuller information as to the antecedents conducive to success that are too briefly described further on should refer to the above book.

The epithet "noteworthy" is applied to achievements in all branches of effort that rank among the members of any profession or calling as equal, at least, to that which an F.R.S. holds among scientific men. This affords a convenient and sufficiently definite standard of merit. I could think of none more appropriate when addressing scientific men, and it seems to have been generally understood in the desired sense. It includes more than a half of those whose names appear in the modern editions of "Who's Who," which are become less discriminate than the earlier ones. "Noteworthiness" is ascribed, without exception, to all whose names appear in the "Dictionary of National Biography," but all of these were dead before the date of the publication of that work and its supplement. Noteworthiness is also ascribed to those whose biographies appear in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (which includes many who are now alive), and, in other works, of equivalent authority. As those persons were considered by editors of the last named publications to be worthy of note, I have accepted them, on their authority, as noteworthy.



CHAPTER III.—HIGHEST ORDER OF ABILITY.

No attempt is made in this book to deal with the transmission of ability of the very highest order, as the data in hand do not furnish the required material, nor will the conclusions be re-examined at length that I published many years ago in "Hereditary Genius." Still, some explanation is desirable to show the complexity of the conditions that are concerned with the hereditary transmission of the highest ability, which, for the moment, will be considered as the same thing as the highest fame.

It has often been remarked that the men who have attained pinnacles of celebrity failed to leave worthy successors, if any. Many concurrent causes aid in producing this result. An obvious one is that such persons are apt to be so immersed in their pursuit, and so wedded to it, that they do not care to be distracted by a wife. Another is the probable connection between severe mental strain and fertility. Women who study hard have, as a class—at least, according to observant caricaturists—fewer of the more obvious feminine characteristics; but whether this should be considered a cause or a consequence, or both, it is difficult to say. A third, and I think the most important, reason why the children of very distinguished persons fall sometimes lamentably short of their parents in ability is that the highest order of mind results from a fortunate mixture of incongruous constituents, and not of such as naturally harmonize. Those constituents are negatively correlated, and therefore the compound is unstable in heredity. This is eminently the case in the typical artistic temperament, which certainly harmonizes with Bohemianism and passion, and is opposed to the useful qualities of regularity, foresight, and level common sense. Where these and certain other incongruous faculties go together in well-adjusted proportions, they are capable of achieving the highest success; but their heritage is most unlikely to be transmitted in its entirety, and ill-balanced compounds of the same constituents are usually of little avail, and sometimes extraordinarily bad. A fourth reason is that the highest imaginative power is dangerously near lunacy. If one of the sanest of poets, Wordsworth, had, as he said, not unfrequently to exert strength, as by shaking a gate-post, to gain assurance that the world around him was a reality, his mind could not at those times have been wholly sane. Sanity is difficult to define, except negatively; but, even though we may be convinced of the truths of the mystic, that nothing is what it seems to be, the above-mentioned conduct suggests temporary insanity. It is sufficient to conclude, as any Philistine would, that whoever has to shake a gate-post to convince himself that it is not a vision is dangerously near madness. Mad people do such things; those who carry on the work of the world as useful and law-abiding citizens do not. I may add that I myself had the privilege of hearing at first hand the narrator's own account of this incident, which was much emphasized by his gestures and tones. Wordsworth's unexpected sally was in reply to a timid question by the late Professor Bonamy Price, then a young man, concerning the exact meaning of the lines in his famous "Ode to Immortality," "not for these I raise the song of praise; but for those obstinate questionings of sense and outward things," etc.

I cannot speak from the present returns, but only from my own private knowledge of the somewhat abnormal frequency with which eccentricity, or other mental unsoundness, occurs in the families of very able scientific men. Lombroso, as is well known, strongly asserted the truth of this fact, but more strongly, as it seems to myself, than the evidence warrants.

It is, therefore, not in the highest examples of human genius that heredity can be most profitably studied, men of high, but not of the highest, ability being more suitable. The only objection to their use is that their names are, for the most part, unfamiliar to the public.

The vastness of the social world is very imperfectly grasped by its several members, the large majority of the numerous persons who have been eminent above their far more numerous fellows, each in his own special department, being unknown to the generality. The merits of such men can be justly appreciated only by reference to records of their achievements. Let no reader be so conceited as to believe his present ignorance of a particular person to be a proof that the person in question does not merit the title of noteworthy.

I said what I have to say about the modern use of the word "genius" in the preface to the second edition of my "Hereditary Genius." It has only latterly lost its old and usual meaning, which is preserved in the term of an "ingenious" artisan, and has come to be applied to something akin to inspiration. This simply means, as I suppose, though some may think differently, that the powers of unconscious work possessed by the brain are abnormally developed in them. The heredity of these powers has not, I believe, been as yet especially studied. It is strange that more attention has not been given until recently to unconscious brain-work, because it is by far the most potent factor in mental operations. Few people, when in rapid conversation, have the slightest idea of the particular form which a sentence will assume into which they have hurriedly plunged, yet through the guidance of unconscious cerebration it develops itself grammatically and harmoniously. I write on good authority in asserting that the best speaking and writing is that which seems to flow automatically shaped out of a full mind.



CHAPTER IV.—PROPORTION OF NOTEWORTHIES TO THE GENERALITY.

The materials on which the subject of this chapter depends are too various to lead to a single definite and trustworthy answer. Men who have won their way to the front out of uncongenial environments owe their success principally, I believe, to their untiring energy, and to an exceptionally strong inclination in youth towards the pursuits in which they afterwards distinguished themselves. They do not seem often to be characterized by an ability that continues pre-eminent on a wider stage, because after they have fully won a position for themselves, and become engaged in work along with others who had no early difficulties to contend with, they do not, as a rule, show greatly higher natural ability than their colleagues. This is noticeable in committees and in other assemblies or societies where intellects are pitted against one another. The bulk of existing noteworthies seem to have had but little more than a fair education as small boys, during which their eagerness and aptitude for study led to their receiving favour and facilities. If, in such cases, the aptitudes are scholastic, a moderate sum suffices to give the boy a better education, enabling him to win scholarships and to enter a University. If they lie in other directions, the boy attracts notice from some more congenial source, and is helped onwards in life by other means. The demand for exceptional ability, when combined with energy and good character, is so great that a lad who is gifted with them is hardly more likely to remain overlooked than a bird's nest in the playground of a school. But, by whatever means noteworthiness is achieved, it is usually after a course of repeated and half-unconscious testings of intelligence, energy, and character, which build up repute brick by brick.

If we compare the number of those who achieved noteworthiness through their own exertions with the numbers of the greatly more numerous persons whose names are registered in legal, clerical, medical, official, military, and naval directories, or in those of the titled classes[A] and landed gentry, or lastly, of those of the immense commercial world, the proportion of one noteworthy person to one hundred of the generality who were equally well circumstanced as himself does not seem to be an over-estimate.

[A] By a rough count of the entries in Burke's "Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage," I find that upwards of 24,000 ladies are of sufficient rank to be included by name in his Table of Precedence.



CHAPTER V.—NOTEWORTHINESS AS A MEASURE OF ABILITY.

Success is the joint result of the natural powers of mind and body, and of favourable circumstances. Those of the latter which fall into definite groups will be distinguished as "environment," while the others, which evade classification, will be called "accidental."

The superstitions of old times cling so tenaciously to modern thought that the words "accident" and "chance" commonly connote some mysterious agency. Nothing of the kind is implied here. The word "accident" and the like is used in these pages simply to express the effect of unknown or unnoted causes, without the slightest implication that they are unknowable. In most cases their neglect has been partly due to their individual insignificance, though their combined effect may be very powerful when a multitude work in the same direction. Moreover, a trifling pressure at the right spot suffices to release a hair-trigger and thereby to cause an explosion; similarly, with personal and social events, a trifling accident will sometimes determine a career.

Noteworthiness and success may be regarded statistically as the outcome of ability and environment and of nothing else, because the effects of chance tend to be eliminated by statistical treatment. The question then becomes, How far may noteworthiness be accepted as a statistical measure of ability?

Ability and environment are each composed of many elements that differ greatly in character. Ability may be especially strong in particular directions as in administration, art, scholarship, or science; it is, nevertheless, so adaptive that an able man has often found his way to the front under more than one great change of circumstance. The force that impels towards noteworthy deeds is an innate disposition in some men, depending less on circumstances than in others. They are like ships that carry an auxiliary steam-power, capable of moving in a dead calm and against adverse winds. Others are like the ordinary sailing ships of the present day—they are stationary in a calm, but can make some way towards their destination under almost any wind. Without a stimulus of some kind these men are idle, but almost any kind of stimulus suffices to set them in action. Others, again, are like Arab dhows, that do little more than drift before the monsoon or other wind; but then they go fast.

Environment is a more difficult topic to deal with, because conditions that are helpful to success in one pursuit may be detrimental in another. High social rank and wealth conduce to success in political life, but their distractions and claims clash with quiet investigation. Successes are of the most varied descriptions, but those registered in this book are confined to such as are reputed honourable, and are not obviously due to favour.

In attacking the problem it therefore becomes necessary to fix the attention, in the first instance, upon the members of some one large, special profession, as upon artists, leaders in commerce, investigators, scholars, warriors, and so forth, then to divide these into subclasses, until more appears to be lost through paucity of material than is gained through its increasing homogeneity.

Whatever group be selected, both ability and environment must be rated according to the requirements of that group. It then becomes possible, and it is not difficult, to roughly array individuals under each of these two heads successively, and to label every person with letters signifying his place in either class. For purposes of the following explanation, each quality will be distributed into three grades, determined not by value, but by class place—namely, the highest third, the medium third, and the lowest third. In respect to ability, these classes will be called A, B, and C. In respect to environment, the grades will refer to its helpfulness towards the particular success achieved, and the classes will be called E, F, G. It must be clearly understood that the differences between the grades do not profess to be equal, merely that A is higher than B, and B than C; similarly as to E, F, and G. The A, B, C may be quite independent of E, F, G, or they may be correlated. Both cases will be considered.

Ability and Environment being mutually helpful towards success, the successes statistically associated with AE will be reckoned higher than those associated with AF. Again, for simplicity of explanation only, it will here be assumed that Ability and Environment are equally potent in securing success. Any other reasonable relation between their influences may be substituted for the purpose of experiment, but the ultimate conclusion will be much the same.

TABLE I.—COMBINATIONS OF ABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT.

- - - AE. I. AF. I. AG. II. - - - BE. I. BF. II. BG. III. - - - CE. II. CF. III. CG. III. - - -

First, suppose Ability and Environment to be entirely independent, A being as frequently associated with E as it is with F or with G; similarly as regards B and C, then the nine combinations shown in Table I. will be equally frequent. These tabular entries fall into three equal groups. The three that lie in and about the upper left-hand corner contain the highest constituents—namely, either high combined with high, or one high with one medium. They produce Successes of Grade I. The three in the middle diagonal band running between the lower left and the upper right corners are either one high and one low, or both are medium; they will produce Successes of Grade II. The three in and about the right-hand corner are either one medium with one low, or both are low; they will produce Successes of Grade III. This is still more clearly seen by sorting the results into Table II., from which it is clear that a high grade of Success is statistically associated with a high, but less, grade of Ability, a medium with a medium, and a low grade of Success with a low, but less low, grade of Ability.

TABLE II. ABILITY INDEPENDENT OF ENVIRONMENT. ____________ Grades of Success. Contributory Combinations. Corresponding Abilities. ___ ______ _____ I. AE AF BE 2 of A 1 of B II. AG BF CE 1 of A 1 of B 1 of C III. CG BG CF 1 of B 2 of C ___ __ __ __ __ __ __

Secondly, suppose A, B, C to be correlated with E, F, G, so that A is more likely to be associated with E than it is with F, and much more likely than with G. Similarly, C is most likely to be associated with G, less likely with F, and least likely with E. The general effect of these preferences will be well represented by divorcing the couples which differ by two grades—namely, AG and CE, by re-mating their constituents as AE and CG, and by re-sorting them, as in Table III. The couples that differ by no more than one grade are left undisturbed. The results now fall into five grades of Success, in four of which each grade contains two-ninths of the whole number, and one, the medium Grade 3, contains only one-ninth.

As remarked previously, the grades are not supposed to be separated by equal steps. They are numbered in ordinary numerals to distinguish them from those in Table II.

TABLE III. ABILITY CORRELATED WITH ENVIRONMENT. ____________ Grades of Success. Contributory Corresponding Abilities. Combinations. ____ ___ ______ 1 AE AE 2 of A 2 AF BE 1 of A 1 of B 3 BF 1 of B 4 BG CF 1 of B 1 of C 5 CG CG 2 of C ____ __ __ __ __ __

It clearly appears from this table that the effect of correlation between Ability and Environment is to increase, and not to diminish, the closeness of association between Success and Ability. Indeed, if the correlation were perfect, Success would become an equal measure both of Ability and of Favourableness of Environment.

These arguments are true for each and every branch of Success, and are therefore true for all: Ability being construed as Appropriate Ability, and Environment as Appropriate Environment.

The general conclusion is that Success is, statistically speaking, a magnified, but otherwise trustworthy, sign of Ability, high Success being associated with high, but not an equally high, grade of Ability, and low with low, but not an equally low. A few instances to the contrary no more contradict this important general conclusion than a few cases of death at very early or at very late ages contradict the tables of expectation of life of a newly-born infant.



CHAPTER VI.—NOMENCLATURE OF KINSHIP.

Specific kinships are such as "paternal uncle" or "maternal uncle," as distinguished from the general term "uncle." The phrase "first cousin" covers no less than eight specific kinships (four male and four female), not taking the issue of mixed marriages into account. Specific kinships are briefly expressed by a nomenclature in which fa, me, bro, si, son, da, Hu, Wi, stand respectively for father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, Husband, Wife. Each of these syllables is supposed to have the possessive 's added to it whenever it is followed by another syllable of the set, or by the word is when it is not. Example: Let the person from whom the kinships are reckoned be called P, and let Q and R be two of P's kinsfolk, described respectively as fa bro and me si son. That means that P's father's brother is Q, and that P's mother's sister's son is R. It is a simple and easily intelligible nomenclature, and replaces intolerable verbiage in the description of distant kinships. My correspondents used it freely, and none of them spoke of any difficulty in understanding it. Its somewhat babyish sound is soon disregarded.

TABLE IV. ABBREVIATIONS. Males. Females. Grandfather, paternal fa fa Grandmother, paternal fa me " maternal me fa " maternal me me Father fa Mother me Uncle, paternal fa bro Aunt, paternal fa si " maternal me bro " maternal me si Brother bro Sister si Son son Daughter da Nephew, brother's son bro son Niece, brother's daughter bro da Nephew, sister's son si son Niece, sister's daughter si da Male first cousins: Female first cousins: 1. Son of paternal 1. Dau. of paternal uncle fa bro son uncle fa bro da 2. Son of maternal 2. Dau. of maternal uncle me bro son uncle me bro da 3. Son of paternal 3. Dau. of paternal aunt fa si son aunt fa si da 4. Son of maternal 4. Dau. of maternal aunt me si son aunt me si da

Those relationships that are expressed by different combinations of these letters differ specifically; therefore, in saying, in the next chapter, that each person has "roughly, on the average, one fertile relative in each and every form of specific kinship," it means in each and every combination of the above syllables that is practically possible.

Relationship may also be expressed conveniently for some purposes in Degrees of remoteness, the number of the Degree being that of the number of syllables used to express the specific kinship.



CHAPTER VII.—NUMBER OF KINSFOLK IN EACH DEGREE.

The population may be likened to counters spread upon a table, each corresponding to a different individual. The counters are linked together by bands of various widths, down to mere threads, the widths being proportional to the closeness of the several kinships. Those in the first degree (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter) are comparatively broad; those in the second degree (grandparent, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, grandchild) are considerably narrower; those in the third degree are very narrow indeed. Proceeding outwards, the connections soon become thinner than gossamer. The person represented by any one of these counters may be taken as the subject of a pedigree, and all the counters connected with it may be noted up to any specified width of band. In this book one of the counters is supposed to represent a Fellow of the Royal Society, whose name appears in the "Year-Book" of that Society for 1904, and the linkage proceeds outwards from him to the third degree inclusive. Usually it stops there, but a few distant kinships have been occasionally inserted chiefly to testify to a prolonged heritage of family traits.

The intensity with which any specified quality occurs in each or any degree of kinship is measured by the proportion between the numbers of those who possess the quality in question and the total number of persons in that same degree. Particular inquiries were made on the latter point, but, as already stated, the answers were incomplete. There is, however, enough information to justify three conclusions of primary importance to the present inquiry—namely, the average number (1) of brothers of the subject, (2) of brothers of his father, and (3) of brothers of his mother.

The number of Fellows to whom circulars were addressed was 467. The number of those who gave useful replies was 207, a little more than one-half of whom sent complete returns of the numbers of their brothers and uncles; some few of these had, however, placed a query here or there, or other sign of hesitation. As the number of completely available returns scarcely exceeded 100, I have confined the following tables to that number exactly, taking the best of the slightly doubtful cases. It would have been possible, by utilizing partial returns and making due allowances, to have obtained nearly half as many again, but the gain in numbers did not seem likely to be compensated by the somewhat inferior quality of the additional data.

The first three lines of Table V. show that there is no significant difference between the average numbers of brothers and sisters, nor between those of fathers' brothers and fathers' sisters, nor again between those of mothers' brothers and mothers' sisters; nor is there any large difference between those of male and female cousins, but it is apparently a fact that the group of "brothers" is a trifle smaller than that of uncles on either side. It seems, therefore, that the generation of the Subjects contains a somewhat smaller number of individuals than that of either of their Parents, being to that extent significant of a lessening population so far as their class is concerned.

TABLE V. NUMBER OF KINSFOLK IN ONE HUNDRED FAMILIES WHO SURVIVED CHILDHOOD. ____________ Generic Specific Number of Specific Number of Kinships. Kinships. Persons. Kinships. Persons. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Brothers and _bro_ 206 _si_ 207 sisters ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Uncles and _fa bro_ 228 _fa si_ 207 aunts _me bro_ 219 _me si_ 238 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Mean 224 Mean 223 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ First cousins, _fa bro son_ 265 _fa bro da_ 302 male and _fa si son_ 184 _fa si da_ 208 female _me bro son_ 236 _me bro da_ 266 _me si son_ 237 _me si da_ 246 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

It may seem at first sight surprising that a brother and a sister should each have the same average number of brothers. It puzzled me until I had thought the matter out, and when the results were published in "Nature," it also seems to have puzzled an able mathematician, and gave rise to some newspaper controversy, which need not be recapitulated. The essence of the problem is that the sex of one child is supposed to give no clue of any practical importance to that of any other child in the same family. Therefore, if one child be selected out of a family of brothers and sisters, the proportion of males to females in those that remain will be, on the average, identical with that of males to females in the population at large. It makes no difference whether the selected child be a boy or a girl. Of course, if the conditions were "given a family of three boys and three girls," each boy would have only two brothers and three sisters, and each girl would have three brothers and two sisters, but that is not the problem.

Subject to this explanation, the general accuracy of the observed figures which attest the truth of the above conclusion cannot be gainsaid on theoretical grounds, nor can the conclusions be ignored to which they lead. They enable us to make calculations concerning the average number of kinsfolk in each and every specified degree in a stationary population, or, if desired, in one that increases or decreases at a specified rate. It will here be supposed for convenience that the average number of males and females are equal, but any other proportion may be substituted. The calculations only regard its fertile members; they show that every person has, on the average, about one male fertile relative in each and every form of specific kinship.

Kinsfolk may be divided into direct ancestry, collaterals of all kinds, and direct descendants. As regards the direct ancestry, each person has one and only one ancestor in each specific degree, one fa, one fa fa, one me fa, and so on, although in each generic degree it is otherwise; he has two grandfathers, four great-grandfathers, etc. With collaterals and descendants the average number of fertile relatives in each specified degree must be stationary in a stationary population, and calculation shows that number is approximately one. The calculation takes no cognizance of infertile relatives, and so its results are unaffected by the detail whether the population is kept stationary by an increased birth-rate of children or other infertiles, accompanied by an increased death-rate among them, or contrariwise.

The exact conclusions were ("Nature," September 29, 1904, p. 529), that if 2d be the number of children in a family, half of them on the average being male, and if the population be stationary, the number of fertile males in each specific ancestral kinship would be one, in each collateral it would be d-1/2, in each descending kinship d. If 2d = 5 (which is a common size of family), one of these on the average would be a fertile son, one a fertile daughter, and the three that remained would leave no issue. They would either die as boys or girls or they would remain unmarried, or, if married, would have no children.

The reasonable and approximate assumption I now propose to make is that the number of fertile individuals is not grossly different to that of those who live long enough to have an opportunity of distinguishing themselves. Consequently, the calculations that apply to fertile persons will be held to apply very roughly to those who were in a position, so far as age is concerned, to achieve noteworthiness, whether they did so or not. Thus, if a group of 100 men had between them 20 noteworthy paternal uncles, it will be assumed that the total number of their paternal uncles who reached mature age was about 100, making the intensity of success as 20 to 100, or as 1 to 5. This method of roughly evading the serious difficulty arising from ignorance of the true values in the individual cases is quite legitimate, and close enough for present purposes.



CHAPTER VIII.—NUMBER OF NOTEWORTHY KINSMEN IN EACH DEGREE.

The materials with which I am dealing do not admit of adequately discussing noteworthiness in women, whose opportunities of achieving distinction are far fewer than those of men, and whose energies are more severely taxed by domestic and social duties. Women have sometimes been accredited in these returns by a member of their own family circle, as being gifted with powers at least equal to those of their distinguished brothers, but definite facts in corroboration of such estimates were rarely supplied.

The same absence of solid evidence is more or less true of gifted youths whose scholastic successes, unless of the highest order, are a doubtful indication of future power and performance, these depending much on the length of time during which their minds will continue to develop. Only a few of the Subjects of the pedigrees in the following pages have sons in the full maturity of their powers, so it seemed safer to exclude all relatives who were of a lower generation than themselves from the statistical inquiry. This will therefore be confined to the successes of fathers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, great-uncles, great-grandfathers, and male first cousins.

Only 207 persons out of the 467 who were addressed sent serviceable replies, and these cannot be considered a fair sample of the whole. Abstention might have been due to dislike of publicity, to inertia, or to pure ignorance, none of which would have much affected the values as a sample; but an unquestionably common motive does so seriously—namely, when the person addressed had no noteworthy kinsfolk to write about. On the latter ground the 260 who did not reply would, as a whole, be poorer in noteworthy kinsmen than the 207 who did. The true percentages for the 467 lie between two limits: the upper limit supposes the richness of the 207 to be shared by the 260; the lower limit supposes it to be concentrated in the 207, the remaining 260 being utterly barren of it. Consequently, the upper limit is found by multiplying the number of observations by 100 and dividing by 207, the lower by multiplying by 100 and dividing by 467. These limits are unreasonably wide; I cannot guess which is the more remote from the truth, but it cannot be far removed from their mean values, and this may be accepted as roughly approximate. The observations and conclusions from them are given in Table VII., p. xl.



CHAPTER IX.—MARKED AND UNMARKED DEGREES OF NOTEWORTHINESS.

Persons who are technically "noteworthy" are by no means of equal eminence, some being of the highest distinction, while others barely deserve the title. It is therefore important to ascertain the amount of error to which a statistical discussion is liable that treats everyone who ranks as noteworthy at all on equal terms. The problem resembles a familiar one that relates to methods for electing Parliamentary representatives, such as have been proposed at various times, whether it should be by the coarse method of one man one vote, or through some elaborate arrangement which seems highly preferable at first sight, but may be found on further consideration to lead to much the same results.

In order to test the question, I marked each noteworthy person whose name occurs in the list of sixty-six families at the end of this book with 3, 2, or 1, according to what I considered his deserts, and soon found that it was easy to mark them with fair consistency. It is not necessary to give the rules which guided me, as they were very often modified by considerations, each obvious enough in itself, but difficult to summarize as a whole. Various provisional trials were made; I then began afresh by rejecting a few names as undeserving any mark at all, and, having marked the remainder individually, found that a total of 657 marks had been awarded to 332 persons; 117 of them had received 3 marks; 101, 2 marks; 104, 1 mark; so the three subdivisions were approximately equal in number. The marks being too few to justify detailed treatment, I have grouped the kinsmen into first, second, and third degrees, and into first cousins, the latter requiring a group to themselves. The first degree contains father and brothers; the second, grandfathers and uncles; the third, great-grandparents and great-uncles. The results are shown in Table VI. The marks assigned to each of the groups are given in the first line (total 657), and the number of the noteworthy persons in each group who received any mark at all is shown in the third line (total 329). In order to compare the first and third lines of entries on equal terms, those in the first were multiplied by 329 and divided by 657, and then entered in the second line. The closeness of resemblance between the second and third lines emphatically answers the question to be solved. There is no significant difference between the results of the marked and the unmarked observations. The reason probably is that the distribution of triple, double, and single marks separately is much the same in each of the groups, and therefore remains alike when the three sets of marks are in use at the same time. It is thus made clear that trouble taken in carefully marking names for different degrees of noteworthiness would be wasted in such a rough inquiry as this.

TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH AND WITHOUT MARKS IN THE SIXTY-FIVE FAMILIES. First Second Third First Total Degree. Degree. Degree. Cousins. Number of marks 225 208 102 122 657 assigned Number of marks reduced proportionately 113 104 51 61 329 Number of individuals unmarked 110 112 46 61 329 Mean 111 108 49 61 329

Table VII., in the next chapter, affords an interesting illustration of the character of the ignorance concerning the noteworthiness of kinsmen in distant degrees, showing that it is much lessened when they bear the same surname as their father, or even as the maiden surname of their mother. The argument is this: Table V. has already shown that me bros are, speaking roughly, as frequently noteworthy as fa bros—fifty-two of the one to forty-five of the other—so noteworthiness is so far an equal characteristic of the maternal and paternal lines, resembling in that respect nearly all the qualities that are transmitted purely through heredity. There ought, therefore, to be as many persons recorded as noteworthy in each of the four different kinds of great-grandparents. The same should be the case in each of the four kinds of great-uncles. But this is not so in either case. The noteworthy great-grandfathers, fa fa fa, who bear the same name as the subject are twice as numerous as the me fa fa who bear the maiden surname of the mother, and more than five times as numerous as either of the other two, the fa me fa and me me fa, whose surnames differ from both, unless it be through some accident, whether of a cross marriage or a chance similarity of names. It is just the same with the great-uncles. Now, the figures for great-grandfathers and great-uncles run so closely alike that they may fairly be grouped together, in order to obtain a more impressive whole—namely, two sorts of these kinsmen, bearing the same name as the Subject, contain between them 23 noteworthies, or 11.50 each; two sorts having the mother's maiden surname contain together 11 noteworthies, or 5.50 each; four sorts containing between them 7 names, or an average of 1.75 each. These figures are self-consistent, being each the sum of two practically equal constituents, and they are sufficiently numerous to be significant. The remarkable differences in their numbers, 11.50, 5.50, 1.75, when they ought to have been equal, has therefore to be accounted for, and the explanation given above seems both reasonable and sufficient.



CHAPTER X.—CONCLUSIONS.

The most casual glance at Table VII. leaves no doubt as to the rapid diminution in the frequency of noteworthiness as the distance of kinship to the F.R.S. increases, and it would presumably do the same to any other class of noteworthy persons.

In drawing more exact conclusions, the returns must be deemed to refer not to a group of 207 F.R.S., because they are not a fair sample of the whole body of 467, and, for reasons already given, they are too rich in noteworthiness for the one and too poor for the other. They will, therefore, be referred to the number that is the mean of these two limits—namely, to 337. I am aware of no obvious guidance to any better hypothesis.

The value of the expectation that noteworthiness would be found in any specified kinsman of an F.R.S., of whom nothing else is known, may be easily calculated from Table VII. on the two hypotheses already mentioned and justified: (1) That the figures should be taken to refer to 337, and not to 207; (2) that 1 per cent. of the generality are noteworthy—that is to say, there are 3.37 noteworthies to every 337 persons of the generality.

TABLE VII. NUMBER OF NOTEWORTHY KINSMEN RECORDED IN 207 RETURNS. __________ Kinship. Numbers Kinship. Numbers Recorded. Recorded. ____ __ ___ __ _fa_ 81 - - _bro_ 104 - - _fa fa_ 40 _fa fa fa_ 11 _me fa_ 42 _fa me fa_ 2 _fa bro_ 45 _me fa fa_ 5 _me bro_ 52 _me me fa_ 1 _fa bro son_ 30 _fa fa bro_ 12 _me bro son_ 19 _fa me bro_ 2 _fa si son_ 28 _me fa bro_ 6 _me si son_ 22 _me me bro_ 2 ____ __ ___ ___

Thus, for the fathers of F.R.S., 81 are recorded as noteworthy, against 3.37 of fathers of the generality—that is, they are 24.1 times as numerous. For the first cousins of F.R.S. there are 99 noteworthies, divided amongst four kinds of male first-cousins, or 24.75 on an average to each kind, against the 3.37 of the generality—that is, they are 7.3 times as numerous.

On this principle the expectation of noteworthiness in a kinsman of an F.R.S. (or of other noteworthy person) is greater in the following proportion than in one who has no such kinsman: If he be a father, 24 times as great; if a brother, 31 times; if a grandfather, 12 times; if an uncle, 14 times; if a male first cousin, 7 times; if a great-great-grandfather on the paternal line, 31/2 times.

The reader may work out results for himself on other hypotheses as to the percentage of noteworthiness among the generality. A considerably larger proportion would be noteworthy in the higher classes of society, but a far smaller one in the lower; it is to the bulk, say, to three-quarters of them, that the 1 per cent. estimate applies, the extreme variations from it tending to balance one another.

The figures on which the above calculations depend may each or all of them be changed to any reasonable amount, without shaking the truth of the great fact upon which Eugenics is based, that able fathers produce able children in a much larger proportion than the generality.

* * * * *

The parents of the 207 Fellows of the Royal Society occupy a wide variety of social positions. A list is given in the Appendix of the more or less noteworthy parents of those Fellows whose names occur in the list of sixty-six families. The parents are classified according to their pursuits. Many parents of the other Fellows in the 207 families were not noteworthy in the technical sense of the word, but were reported to be able. It was also often said in the replies that the general level of ability among the members of the family of the F.R.S. was high. Other parents were in no way remarkable, so the future Fellow was simply a "sport," to use the language of horticulturists and breeders, in respect to his taste and ability. It is to be remembered that "sports" are transmissible by heredity, and have been, through careful selection, the origin of most of the valuable varieties of domesticated plants and animals. Sports have been conspicuous in the human race, especially in some individuals of the highest eminence in music, painting, and in art generally, but this is not the place to enter further into so large a subject. It has been treated at length by many writers, especially by Bateson and De Vries, also by myself in the third chapter of "Natural Inheritance" and in the preface to the second edition of "Hereditary Genius."



NOTEWORTHY FAMILIES OF

FELLOWS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

LIVING IN 1904.



AVEBURY, Lord. See LUBBOCK.



BALFOUR, Right Hon. Arthur James (b. 1848), P.C., etc., F.R.S., Leader of the House of Commons, 1895; Prime Minister, 1902; President of the British Association, 1904; author of "The Foundations of Belief." [For fuller references, see "Who's Who" and numerous other biographies.]

bro, Francis Maitland BALFOUR (1851-1882), F.R.S., Professor of Animal Morphology at Cambridge; brilliant investigator in embryology; gold medal, Royal Society, 1881; killed by a fall in the Alps.

bro, Right Hon. Gerald W. BALFOUR (b. 1853), P.C., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; President of the Board of Trade, 1902.

si, Eleanor Mildred (Mrs. Henry SIDGWICK), Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge.

si, Evelyn, wife of LORD RAYLEIGH, F.R.S., and mother of Hon. Robert John STRUTT, F.R.S. (q.v.).

me bro, 3rd Marquis of SALISBURY, Robert A.T. GASCOIGNE-CECIL (1830-1903), K.G., P.C., etc., F.R.S.; eminent statesman; Prime Minister, 1885-1886, 1886, 1895-1903; Chancellor of the University of Oxford; President of the British Association, 1894; in earlier life essayist and critic; also an experimenter in electricity.

It is difficult to distinguish those in the able family of the Cecils whose achievements were due to sheer ability from those who were largely helped by social influence. A second me bro and five me bro sons are recorded in "Who's Who."



Sir Robert Stawell BALL, LL.D., F.R.S. (b. 1840), Lowndean Prof. of Astronomy and Geometry, Cambridge; Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; Member of the Council of the Senate; Director of the Cambridge Observatory since 1892; Royal Astronomer of Ireland, 1874-1892; Ex-President of Royal Astronomical Soc., Mathematical Assoc., and of Royal Zoological Soc. of Ireland; author of many works on astronomical, mathematical, and physical subjects.—["Who's Who."]

fa, Robert BALL (1802-1857), Hon. LL.D., Trinity Coll., distinguished naturalist; Secretary of Royal Zoological Soc. of Ireland; President of Geological Soc. of Ireland; Director of Trinity Coll. Museum, 1844.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

bro, Valentine BALL, LL.D., C.B., F.R.S. (1843-1895); on staff of Geological Survey of India, 1864-1880; Prof. of Geology and Mineralogy in the University of Dublin, 1880-1882; Director and Organizer of National Museum, Dublin, 1882-1895; author of "Jungle Life in India," of an elaborate treatise on the economic geology of India, and of "Diamonds and Gold of India."—["Obit. Notice, P.R.S.," 1895.]

bro, Sir Charles Bent BALL, M.D., M.Ch., F.R.C.S.I., Hon. F.R.C.S., England; Regius Professor of Surgery, Univ. of Dublin; Surgeon to Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital, and Honorary Surgeon to the King in Ireland; author of various surgical works.—["Who's Who."]

me bro son, Ames HELLICAR, the successful manager of the leading bank in Sydney, N.S.W.



Thomas George BARING, first Earl of NORTHBROOK (1826-1904), P.C., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.; Under-Secretary of State for India, Home Department, and for War; Viceroy of India, 1872-1876; First Lord of the Admiralty, 1880-1885.—["Who's Who," and "Ency. Brit."]

fa fa fa, Sir Francis BARING (1710-1810), Chairman of East India Company, 1792-1793; created baronet 1793.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa fa bro, Alexander BARING, first Baron ASHBURTON (1774-1848), financier and statesman; head for many years of Baring Brothers and Co.; member of Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet of 1835; raised to peerage 1835; Commissioner to U.S.A., 1842, for Settlement "Ashburton Treaty" of Boundary Dispute.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me me, Hon. Lady GREY, nee WHITBREAD (1770-1858), prominent in every work of Christian philanthropy during twenty-four years in the Commissioner's house in Plymouth, afterwards in Ireland.—["Record" newspaper, May 26, 1858.]

fa, Francis Thornhill BARING (1786-1866), first Baron NORTHBROOK, double first at Oxford, 1817; First Lord of the Admiralty.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa bro, Thomas BARING (1799-1873), financier; refused Chancellorship of Exchequer, also a peerage; head for many years of Baring Brothers and Co.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa bro, Charles BARING (1807-1879), double first at Oxford, 1829; Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, 1856, of Durham, 1861.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa fa bro son, Evelyn BARING (b. 1841), first Earl CROMER, P.C., son of H. Baring, M.P.; passed first into staff college from Royal Artillery; made successively Baron, Viscount, and Earl, for services in Egypt.—["Who's Who," and "Ency. Brit."]

fa fa si son, Henry LABOUCHERE (1798-1869), first Baron TAUNTON, first-class "Greats" at Oxford; Cabinet Minister under Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell; raised to peerage 1859.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me bro, Sir George GREY (1799-1882), Home Secretary 1846-1852, 1855-1858, 1861-1866; carried the Bill that abolished transportation.

me fa bro, Charles GREY (1764-1845), second Earl GREY, Prime Minister; carried the Reform Bill.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me si son, Sir Edward JENKINSON (b. 1835), K.C.B., Private Secretary to Lord Spencer when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.—["Who's Who."]

Descended from fa fa fa bro, Rev. S. BARING-GOULD (b. 1834), author of numerous novels and works on theology and history.—["Who's Who."]



William Thomas BLANFORD, LL.D., F.R.S.; (1832-1905), on staff of Geological Survey of India, 1855-1882; accompanied Abyssinian Expedition and Persian Boundary Commission; sometime President of Geological Society and of Asiatic Soc. of Bengal, also of Geological Section British Assoc.; author of works dealing with the geology and zoology of Abyssinia, Persia, and India.—["Who's Who."]

fa, William BLANFORD, established a manufacturing business in London, and was a founder, and for many years Chairman, of the Thames Plate Glass Company.

me bro, Alfred SIMPSON, established a large and successful manufacturing business in Adelaide, S. Australia.

bro, Henry Francis BLANFORD, F.R.S., for many years at the head of the Indian Meteorological Department, which he originally organized.



Right Hon. Charles BOOTH (b. 1840), P.C., F.R.S., economist and statistician; President of the Royal Statistical Soc., 1892-1894; originated and carried through a co-operative inquiry in minute detail into the houses and occupations of the inhabitants of London, which resulted in the volumes "Life and Labour of the People of London"; author of memoirs on allied subjects. ["Ency. Brit.," xxvi. 306; "Who's Who."]

fa fa, Thomas BOOTH, successful merchant and shipowner at Liverpool.

fa bro, Henry BOOTH (1788-1869), railway projector; co-operated with Stephenson in applying steam to locomotion, published much relating to railways, and invented mechanical contrivances still in use on railways; secretary and then railway director.—["Dict. N. Biog.," v. 382.]

fa bro, James BOOTH (1796-1880), C.B., Parliamentary draughtsman; became Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade.

me si son, Charles CROMPTON, Fourth Wrangler, Q.C., and for some years M.P. for the Leek Division of Staffordshire.

me si son, Henry CROMPTON, a leader in the Positivist Community; authority on Trades Union Law, and author of "Industrial Conciliation."

me si son, Sir Henry Enfield ROSCOE, F.R.S. (q.v.)



Robert Holford Macdowall BOSANQUET, F.R.S. (b. 1841). Fellow of St. John's Coll., Oxford; author of many mathematical and physical memoirs, chiefly in the "Philosophical Magazine."

fa fa bro, Sir John Bernard BOSANQUET (1773-1847), Judge of Common Pleas, 1830; Lord Commissioner of Great Seal, 1835-1836.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

bro, Bernard BOSANQUET (b. 1848), Prof. of Moral Philosophy, St. Andrews, since 1903; formerly Fellow of University Coll., Oxford; worked in connection with Charity Organization Society; author of many books on philosophy.—["Who's Who."]

bro, Vice-Admiral Day Hort BOSANQUET (b. 1843), Commander-in-Chief West Indian Station since 1904; previously Commander-in-Chief East Indian.—["Who's Who."]

fa son, Charles Bertie Pulleine BOSANQUET (b. 1834), a founder and the first secretary of the Charity Organization Society.

me fa bro, Hay MACDOWALL (d. 1806), Commander-in-Chief of Madras Presidency.

fa son son, Robert Carr BOSANQUET (b. 1871), archaeologist, director of British School of Archaeology at Athens.

me si son, Ralph DUNDAS, head of large and influential firm of Dundas and Wilson, Writers to the Signet, Edinburgh. His relatives on his father's side include his—

fa, John DUNDAS, worked up the business of Dundas and Wilson into its present position.

fa fa son, Sir David DUNDAS (1799-1877), Judge-Advocate-General and Privy Councillor, 1849.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa fa son, George DUNDAS, Judge in Scotch Courts under the title of Lord MANOR.

fa fa son son, David DUNDAS, K.C. (b. 1854), Judge in Scotch Courts under the title of Lord DUNDAS; Solicitor-General for Scotland, 1903.—["Who's Who."]



James Thomson BOTTOMLEY (Hon. LL.D., Glasgow), D.Sc., F.R.S., electrical engineer (1870-1899); Arnott and Thomson, Demonstrator in the University of Glasgow.—["Who's Who."]

me fa, James THOMSON.

me bro, William THOMSON, Lord Kelvin, F.R.S.

me bro, James THOMSON, F.R.S.

See THOMSON for the above.



Sir Dietrich BRANDIS (b. 1824), K.C.I.E., F.R.S., Superintendent of Forests, British Burmah, 1856-1864; Inspector-General of Forests to the Government of India, 1864-1883.—["Who's Who."]

fa fa, Joachim Dietrich BRANDIS, born at Hildesheim, where his ancestors had governed the town as Burgemeister for centuries; practised medicine at Brunswick, Driburg, and Pyrmont; Professor of Pathology at Kiel; ultimately physician to the Queen of Denmark.

fa, Christian August BRANDIS, secretary of the Prussian Legation in Rome, 1818; afterwards Professor of Philosophy at Bonn; went to Athens, 1837-1839, as confidential adviser to King Otho, partly with regard to the organization of schools and colleges in Greece; author of a "History of Greek Philosophy."

me bro, Friedrich HAUSMANN, Professor of Mineralogy and Geology at Goettingen; author of a "Handbook of Mineralogy."

bro, Johannes BRANDIS, for many years Kabinetsrath of H.M. Empress Augusta, Queen of Prussia.

me si son, Julius VON HARTMANN, commanded a cavalry division in the Franco-German War; after the war was Governor of Strasburg.



Alexander Crum BROWN (b. 1838), M.D., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh University since 1869; president of the Chemical Soc., London, 1892-1893.—["Who's Who."]

fa fa fa, John BROWN (1722-1787), of Haddington, Biblical commentator; as a herd boy taught himself Latin, Greek, and learned Hebrew with the aid of a teacher, at one time a pedlar; served as a soldier in the Edinburgh garrison, 1745; minister to the Burgher congregation at Haddington, 1750-1787; acted as Professor of Divinity to Burgher students after 1767.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa fa, John BROWN (1754-1832), Scottish divine; minister of Burgher church at Whitburn, 1776-1832; wrote memoirs of James Hervey, 1806, and many religious treatises.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa, John BROWN (1784-1858), minister of Burgher church at Biggor, 1806; of Secession Church at Edinburgh, 1822; D.D., 1830; Professor of Exegetics Secession Coll., 1834, and in United Presbyterian Coll. 1847; author of many exegetical commentaries.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me bro, Walter CRUM, F.R.S., manufacturer at Thornliebank, near Glasgow; a successful man of business and a very able chemist.

fa son, John BROWN (1810-1882), M.D., practised in Edinburgh with success; author of "Horae Subsecivae," "Rab and his Friends."—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa si son, Robert JOHNSTONE (b.1832), D.D., LL.B., Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in the United Free Church Coll., Aberdeen; has published works on the New Testament.—["Who's Who."]

si son, Charles STEWART-WILSON, Postmaster-General, Punjab, since 1899.—["India List."]

me bro son, Alexander CRUM, managing director of the "Thornliebank Co.," for some time M.P. for Renfrewshire.



Sir James Crichton BROWNE (b. 1840), M.D., LL.D., F.R.S., Lord Chancellor's Visitor in Lunacy since 1875; Vice-President and Treasurer Royal Institution since 1889; author of various works on mental and nervous diseases.—["Who's Who."]

me fa, Andrew BALFOUR, successful printer in Edinburgh; collaborated with Sir David Brewster in production of the "Edinburgh Encyclopaedia," the forerunner of the "Ency. Brit."; one of the leaders of the Free Church disruption.

fa, William Alexander Francis BROWNE, F.R.S.E., physician; largely instrumental in introducing humane methods for the treatment of the insane into Scotland; was appointed First Scotch Commissioner in Lunacy; author of works on mental diseases.

me bro, John Hutton BALFOUR (1808-1884), M.D., LL.D., F.R.S. and F.R.S.E., Professor of Botany at Glasgow, 1841; and at Edinburgh, 1845; wrote botanical text-books.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

bro, John Hutton BALFOUR-BROWNE, K.C. (b. 1845), Leader of the Parliamentary Bar; Registrar and Secretary to Railway Comm., 1874; author of numerous legal works.—["Who's Who."]

me bro son, Isaac Bayley BALFOUR, M.D., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S. (b. 1853), King's Botanist in Scotland; Regius Keeper of Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh; Professor of Botany at Glasgow and at Oxford, and since 1888 at Edinburgh.—["Who's Who."]



Sir John Scott BURDON-SANDERSON, Bart., cr. 1899, M.D., D.C.L., LL.D., D.Sc., F.R.S.; held a succession of important offices, beginning with Inspector Med. Dep. Privy Council, 1860-1865; Superintendent Brown Institution, 1871-1878; Professor of Physiology University Coll., London, 1874-1882; in Oxford, 1882-1895; President Brit. Assoc., 1893; Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, 1895-1904; served on three Royal Commissions; author of many physiological memoirs.—["Ency. Brit.," xxvi. 464; "Who's Who."]

fa fa, Sir Thomas BURDON, Kt., several times Mayor of Newcastle, knighted for his services in quelling a riot.

me fa, Sir James SANDERSON, Bart., M.P., Lord Mayor of London; a successful merchant.

fa, Richard BURDON-SANDERSON, graduated first class and gained Newdigate prize; Fellow of Oriel Coll., Oxford; was Secretary to Lord Chancellor Eldon.

bro, Richard BURDON-SANDERSON, the first promoter of the "Conciliation Board" of coal-owners and colliers at Newcastle-on-Tyne, and of the first reformatory in Northumberland.

si son, Rt. Hon. Richard Burdon HALDANE (b. 1856), P.C., M.P., high honours at Edinburgh and three other Scotch universities; author of "Life of Adam Smith" and of "Memoirs on Education."—["Who's Who."]

si son, John Scott HALDANE (b. 1860), q.v., M.D., F.R.S., University Lecturer on Physiology at Oxford; joint editor and founder of "Journal of Hygiene."—["Who's Who."]

si da, Elizabeth Sanderson HALDANE (q.v.).

More distant kinsmen and connections:

fa me bro, John SCOTT, first Earl of ELDON (1751-1838), famous Lord Chancellor of England.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa me bro, William SCOTT (1745-1836), first Baron STOWELL, eminent maritime and international lawyer; judge of High Court of Admiralty, (1798-1828).—["Dict. N. Biog."]

wife's bro, FARRER, first Lord HERSCHELL, Lord Chancellor of England.



Charles CHREE, Sc.D. (Camb.), LL.D. (Aberdeen), F.R.S. (1860), Superintendent Observatory Department, National Physical Lab.; graduated Aberdeen, 1879, obtaining gold medal awarded to the most distinguished graduate in Arts of the year; Sixth Wrangler, Cambridge, 1883; first division Math. Tripos, Part III.; first class Natural Sciences Tripos, Part II.; and Fellow of King's College, 1885; re-elected as Research Fellow, 1890.—["Who's Who."]

fa, Charles CHREE, Hon. D.D. Aberdeen University; for many years clerk to Presbytery of Meigle, and convener of committee for examining divinity students in St. Andrew's University. Had considerable reputation in Church of Scotland for general scholarship, and especially for knowledge of Hebrew.

bro, William CHREE, after graduating with first class mathematical honours at Aberdeen University, obtained a "Fullerton" mathematical scholarship. In addition to prizes in mathematics and physics at Aberdeen, obtained also prizes in Latin, natural history, and moral philosophy. At Edinburgh University was awarded either first or second prizes in Scots Law, conveyancing, civil law, public law, and constitutional history. Practises as advocate at Scotch Bar.

bro, Alexander Bain CHREE, died young, having graduated at Aberdeen University with first class honours in mathematics, obtaining prizes in mathematics, physics, Latin, Greek, moral philosophy, and natural history.

si, Jessie Search CHREE, obtained two prizes and honours in at least four subjects (French, logic, Latin, physics) in the Edinburgh University local examinations.



Arthur Herbert CHURCH (b. 1834), F.R.S., D.Sc., Professor of Chemistry at Royal Academy of Arts since 1879; discoverer of turacin, also of churchite and other new minerals; President of the Mineralogical Society, 1898-1901; author of various works on English pottery and porcelain, on precious stones, on food, and on the chemistry of paints and painting.—["Who's Who."]

bro, Henry Francis CHURCH (1824-1899), solicitor, Chief Clerk in Chancery, and Master of the High Court of Judicature.

bro, Alfred John CHURCH (Rev.), (b. 1829), Headmaster of Henley and of Retford Grammar Schools; Professor of Latin at Univ. Coll., London, 1880-1888; prize poem, Oxford, 1883; author of various works dealing with classical subjects.—["Who's Who."]

fa si da son, Sir John R. SEELEY, K.C.M.G. (1834-1895), Professor first of Latin at Univ. Coll., London, and afterwards of Modern History at Cambridge; published in 1865 "Ecce Homo," a work which attracted immediate attention and provoked a storm of controversy; also works on history and political science.—["Dict. N. Biog."]



Sydney Monckton COPEMAN, F.R.S., M.D. (Camb.), Medical Inspector Local Government Board; Member of Council of Epidemiological Society; Research Scholar and Special Commissioner British Medical Association; recipient of many gold medals and prizes of importance.—["Who's Who."]

fa fa fa, Peter COPEMAN, founder, with his brother Robert, of Copeman's Bank, Aylsham, Norfolk (now incorporated with Barclay's); successful merchant.

fa, Arthur Charles COPEMAN, M.B., London; gold medallist in anatomy and physiology, University of London; entered Army Medical Service on the nomination of the Chancellor of the University; subsequently entered the Church, and became Hon. Canon of Norwich Cathedral; for many years Chairman of Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, and of Norwich School Board and Board of Guardians.

fa bro, Edward COPEMAN, M.D., Aberdeen; President British Medical Association; consulting physician to Norfolk and Norwich Hospital; author and inventor of gynaecological instruments and of special methods of operation.



James Henry COTTERILL, F.R.S. (b. 1836), Lecturer and subsequently Vice-Principal of the Royal School of Naval Architecture, South Kensington; Professor of Applied Mechanics at the Royal Naval Coll., Greenwich, 1873-1897.—["Who's Who."]

fa bro, Thomas COTTERILL, eminent clergyman at Sheffield; A.B., Cambridge, 1801.—["Grad. Cant."]

bro, Joseph Morthland COTTERILL, D.D. (hon. causa), St. Andrew's University.

fa son, Henry COTTERILL, Senior Wrangler, 1835; second classic, Fellow of St. John's Coll., Cambridge; Bishop of Edinburgh.—["Grad. Cant."]

bro son, Joseph M. COTTERILL (b. 1851), Surgeon to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, Lecturer at Edinburgh School of Medicine.—["Who's Who."]

bro son, Arthur COTTERILL, Head of Permanent Way Department Egyptian Railway Administration.

fa bro son, Thomas COTTERILL, third wrangler, 1832; fellow of St. John's Coll., Cambridge; one of the earliest members of the London Mathematical Soc., to which he contributed many papers of importance.—["Grad. Cant."]



George Howard DARWIN (b. 1845), F.R.S., second wrangler, 1868; Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge; author of many papers in the "Philosophical Transactions" relating to tides, physical astronomy, and cognate subjects; President of British Association in 1905 at Cape Town.—["Who's Who."]

fa fa fa, Erasmus DARWIN, M.D., F.R.S. (1731-1802), physician, poet, and philosopher; author of "Botanic Garden," "Zoonomia," and other works, in which he maintained a view of evolution subsequently expounded by Lamarck.—["Life," by Ch. R. Darwin, and "Dict. N. Biog."]

fa fa, Robert Waring DARWIN (1766-1848), M.D., F.R.S., sagacious and distinguished physician; described by his son, Charles R. Darwin, as "the wisest man I ever knew."—["Life and Letters of Charles R. Darwin," i. 10-20.]

fa fa bro, Charles DARWIN (1758-1778), of extraordinary promise, gained first gold medal of AEsculapian Society for experimental research; died from a dissection wound, aged twenty; many obituary notices.—["Life and Letters of Charles R. Darwin," i. 7.]

fa bro, Erasmus DARWIN. (See Carlyle's inexact description, and the appreciations of him by his brother and others, in "Life and Letters of Charles R. Darwin," i. 21-25.)

fa, Charles Robert DARWIN (1809-1882), F.R.S., the celebrated naturalist. The dates of his works are "Voyage of the Beagle," 1840; "Origin of Species," 1859; followed by a succession of eight important volumes ranging from 1862 to 1881, each of which confirmed and extended his theory of descent. Among the very numerous biographical memoirs it must suffice here to mention "Life and Letters," by Francis Darwin, and "Dict. N. Biog."

me me fa, Josiah WEDGWOOD, F.R.S. (1730-1795), the famous founder of the pottery works.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me me bro, Thomas WEDGWOOD (1771-1805), an experimenter in early life, and in one sense the first to create photography; a martyr to ill-health later. Sydney Smith knew "no man who appeared to have made such an impression on his friends," his friends including many of the leading intellects of the day.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me fa fa (she was her husband's fa bro dau), Josiah WEDGWOOD, F.R.S.; see above.

me bro, Hensleigh WEDGWOOD (1803-1891), author of "Etymological Dictionary" and of other works, partly mathematical.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me bro dau, Julia WEDGWOOD, essayist.

bro, Francis DARWIN (b. 1848), F.R.S., botanist; biographer of his father; reader in botany at Cambridge, 1876-1903; foreign sec. Royal Society. Author of botanical works and memoirs.—["Who's Who."]

bro, Major Leonard DARWIN (b. 1850), late R.E., second in the examination of his year for Woolwich; served on several scientific expeditions, including transit of Venus of 1874 and 1882; Staff Intelligence Dep. War Office, 1885-1890; M.P. for Lichfield, 1892-1895. Author of "Bimetallism," "Municipal Trade."—["Who's Who."]

bro, Horace DARWIN (b. 1851), F.R.S., engineer and mechanician; joint founder of the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company and its proprietor. It is now a limited company, of which he is chairman.—["Who's Who."]

More distant relation:

fa fa si son, Francis GALTON, F.R.S. (q.v.).



Sir John EVANS (b. 1823), K.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., Sc.D., F.R.S., President of the Royal Numismatic Society since 1874; trustee of the British Museum; treasurer and vice-president of the Royal Society during twenty years; has been president of numerous learned societies; author of works on the coins of the Ancient Britons, and on their stone and bronze implements.—["Who's Who," and "Ency. Brit."]

fa fa, Lewis EVANS (1755-1827), F.R.S., F.A.S., mathematician; first Mathematical Master of R.M.A., Woolwich.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa, Arthur Benoni EVANS (1781-1854), D.D., miscellaneous writer; Professor of Classics and History, R.M.C., 1805-1822; headmaster of Market Bosworth Grammar School, 1825-1854.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me bro and wi fa, John DICKINSON (1782-1869), F.R.S., inventor of paper-making machine.

bro, Sebastian EVANS, LL.D., poet, artist, and author.

si, Anne EVANS (1820-1870), poet and musician, composer.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

son, Arthur John EVANS (b. 1851), D.Litt. (Oxon), Hon. D.Litt. (Dublin), Hon. LL.D. (Edinburgh), F.R.S., Keeper of Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, since 1884; in 1893 started investigations in Crete, which resulted in the discovery of the pre-Phoenician script; in 1900-1905 excavated the prehistoric palace of Knossos.—["Who's Who."]

me bro son and wi bro, John DICKINSON (1815-1876), writer on India, and founder of Indian Reform Society, 1853.—["Dict. N. Biog."]



Right Hon. Sir Edward FRY (b. 1827), D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., Judge of High Court, Chancery Division, 1877-1883; Lord Justice of Appeal, 1883-1892; President of the Royal Com. on the Irish Land Acts, 1897-1898; Chairman of the Court of Arbitration under the Metropolitan Water Act, 1902; member of the Permanent Court of International Arbitration at the Hague; author of a "Treatise on the Specific Performance of Contracts," of "British Mosses," and "The Mycetozoa."—["Who's Who."]

fa bro, Francis FRY (1803-1886), member of the firm of J.S. Fry and Co., Bristol; a great authority on bibliography.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

bro, Right Hon. Lewis FRY (b. 1832), M.P. for Bristol, 1878-1885; N. Bristol, 1885-1892, and 1895-1900.—["Who's Who."]

bro, Joseph Storrs FRY, has maintained and extended a large manufacturing business, and taken an active part in philanthropic work.

fa fa fa, Joseph FRY (1728-1787), practised medicine in Bristol, afterwards manufactured cocoa and chocolate; started type-founding business with William Pine, 1764.—["Dic. N. Biog."]

fa fa bro, Edmund FRY (1754-1835), M.D. of Edinburgh; devoted his life to the business of type-founding, and to the philological studies connected with it.—["Dic. N. Biog."]

wife, Mariabella, nee HODGKIN, dau of the historian.



Francis GALTON (b. 1822), D.C.L., Hon. Sc.D. (Camb.), F.R.S., traveller, anthropologist and biometrician; author of many works and memoirs on these and analogous subjects, including meteorology, heredity, identification by fingerprints; latterly a promoter of the study of Eugenics. Gold medal R. Geog. Soc., 1853, for travels in Damaraland, S. Africa; Royal medal, 1886, and Darwin medal, 1903, of the Royal Soc., for applications of measurement to human faculty; Huxley medal of the Anthropol. Institute, 1901.—["Ency. Brit.," and "Who's Who."]

fa si, SCHIMMELPENNINCK (1778-1856), Mrs. Mary Anne, author of various works, mostly theological, and on the Port Royalists and Moravians.—["Dic. N. Biog."]

fa fa fa, Samuel GALTON (1720-1799), cultured Quaker philanthropist, contractor and banker.—[See life of above M.A.S., and the "Annual Register."]

fa me 1/2 bro, Robert Barclay ALLARDICE (1779-1854), commonly known as Capt. BARCLAY of Ury, pedestrian, noted for his walking feats, agriculturist.—["Dic. N. Biog."]

me fa, Erasmus DARWIN, M.D., F.R.S.—See DARWIN.

me 1/2 bro son, Charles Robert DARWIN, F.R.S., the naturalist.—See DARWIN.

si son, Edward G. WHELER (b. 1850), a founder and president of the Land Agents' Society; commissioner and estate agent during sixteen years for 155,000 acres of various descriptions of property.

fa bro son, Sir Douglas GALTON (1822-1901), K.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., passed from Woolwich to Royal Engineers with the best examination then on record, obtaining first prize in every subject, 1840; Inspector of Railways, and Secretary of Railway Dept., Board of Trade, 1856; Assistant Inspector-General of Fortifications, 1860; designed and constructed the Herbert Hospital at Woolwich; Director of Public Works and Building in H.M. Works, 1870-1875; General Secretary of British Assoc., 1870-1895; President of it, 1895; authority on hospital construction, and on the sanitation, ventilation, etc., of public buildings.—["Dict. N. Biog.," Suppl. ii.]

His kindred by his mother's side are:

me fa fa, Jedediah STRUTT (1726-1797), hosiery manufacturer and cotton spinner; inventor of machine for making ribbed stockings; partner of Sir Richard Arkwright.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me fa, Joseph STRUTT (1765-1844), first Mayor of Derby, 1835, and donor of the arboretum; great friend of the poet Thomas Moore.—["Dict. N. Biog.," and "Life and Letters" of T. Moore.]

me fa bro, William STRUTT (1756-1830), ingenious mechanician and inventor; friend of Erasmus Darwin, R.L. Edgeworth, Robert Owen, Joseph Lancaster, Samuel Bentham Dalton, etc.; originator and designer of the first Derby Infirmary.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me fa bro son, Edward STRUTT (1801-1880), created Baron BELPER, 1856; M.P., F.R.S.; a philosophical Radical, intimate with Bentham, the Mills, and Macaulay; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1852-1854; President of University Coll., London, 1871.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me fa bro son, Anthony STRUTT (1791-1875), ingenious mechanician.

me me si son, Sir Charles FOX (1810-1874), constructing engineer of London and Birmingham Railway; knighted after designing Exhibition buildings in Hyde Park, 1851; made first narrow-gauge line in India; built Berlin Waterworks.—["Dict. N. Biog."]



Sir Archibald GEIKIE (b. 1835), F.R.S., and many foreign distinctions; Director-General Geological Survey of United Kingdom, and Director Museum Practical Geology in Jermyn Street, 1882-1901; medallist of the Royal and other societies; Secretary of the Royal Society; author of numerous works on geology, also of biographies of David Forbes, Sir R. Murchison, and Sir A. Ramsay.—["Who's Who," "Ency. Brit."]

fa, James Stewart GEIKIE (1811-1883), musician and musical critic; author of much psalmody, and of several well-known Scottish melodies, such as "My Heather Hills."

fa bro, Walter GEIKIE (1795-1837). R.S.A., painter and draughtsman; author of "Etchings Illustrative of Scottish Character and Scenery."—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me bro, William THOMS, master mariner; subsequently teacher of navigation in New York; author of an elaborate treatise on navigation.

bro, James GEIKIE (b. 1839), LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S.; Professor of Geology and Mineralogy since 1882, and Dean of the Faculty of Science Edinburgh; author of many works on geology, and of "Songs and Lyrics by Heinrich Heine."—["Who's Who," and "Ency. Brit."]

fa bro son, Cunningham GEIKIE (b. 1824), LL.D., D.D., a clergyman; author of many religious works.—["Who's Who."]

fa bro son, Walter Bayne GEIKIE, Professor of Anatomy, and Dean of Medical Faculty, Trinity Coll., Toronto.



Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Haversham GODWIN-AUSTEN (b. 1834), F.R.S., geologist; Topographical Assistant to the Trigonometric Survey of India; surveyed the high country and glaciers of Kashmir and by Ladak, also between Darjeeling and Punakha; numerous scientific memoirs.—["Who's Who."]

fa fa fa, Robert AUSTEN, archaeologist and coin collector; he was one of the few in his time who understood the value of local maps; a good surveyor of his own property and neighbourhood.

fa fa, Sir Henry E. AUSTEN, interested in forestry, and planted largely on his estate; he also knew the value of maps, and had excellent ones of his property.

fa, Robert Alfred C. GODWIN-AUSTEN (1808-1884), F.R.S., geologist, took additional surname of Godwin; wrote important papers on the geology of Devonshire, Southern England, and parts of France. —["Dict. N. Biog."]

me fa, Major-General Sir Thomas H. GODWIN (1784-1853), K.C.B., served in Hanover and the Peninsula, Commander-in-Chief in second Burmese War.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

bro, Harold GODWIN-AUSTEN, Assistant-Commissioner to the Andaman Islands for thirteen years; was selected by Ney Elias to accompany him on a mission to Yarkand and Kashmir; is now a Deputy Commissioner in S. India.

me, Maria Elizabeth GODWIN-AUSTEN, was certainly above the average of women of her time; interested in natural history; drew well in pen and pencil; was an accomplished musician.

si son, Bertram H.M. HEWETT, civil engineer; surveyed the great glaciers of the Mustakh Range, Kashmir, and elsewhere; is now in sole charge of main shaft of tunnel under the river in New York.



Francis GOTCH (b. 1853), D.Sc, F.R.S., Waynflete Professor of Physiology at Oxford; formerly Holt Professor of Physiology at University Coll., Liverpool; author of many scientific papers.—["Who's Who."]

me fa, Ebenezer FOSTER, founder of well-known banking firm of Messrs. Foster, Cambridge.

fa, Fredrick William GOTCH, LL.D., late President of Baptist College, Bristol; Hebrew scholar; member of committee for the authorized version of the Old Testament.

fa bro son, Thomas Cooper GOTCH (b. 1854), well-known painter.—["Who's Who."]

wi bro, Sir Victor HORSLEY (q.v.)



Right Hon. Sir Mountstuart Elphinstone GRANT DUFF (b. 1829), G.C.S.I., P.C., F.R.S., sometime Under-Secretary of State for India and the Colonies, and Governor of Madras; has been Lord Rector of Aberdeen University, and president of many learned societies; King's Trustee of British Museum since 1903; author of political, literary, and biographical works.—["Who's Who."]

fa, James GRANT DUFF (1789-1858), while still a lieutenant, aged twenty-eight, reduced the Sattara State to order after the overthrow of the Peishwa, and restored it to the descendant of its ancient princes, whom he guided as resident till his health broke down at the age of thirty-three. Returning to this country, he wrote the "History of the Mahrattas."—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me fa, Sir Whitelaw AINSLIE (1767-1837), surgeon in the East India Company's service, 1788-1815; published "Materia Medica of Hindoostan," and other works.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

son, Arthur Cuninghame GRANT DUFF (b. 1861), lately First Secretary to H.M.'s Legation, Mexico.

son, Evelyn Mountstuart GRANT DUFF (b. 1863), First Secretary to H.M.'s Legation, Persia.

son, Adrian GRANT DUFF (b. 1869), Staff-Captain (Intelligence Dept.) Army Headquarters.



John Scott HALDANE (b. 1860), F.R.S., University Lecturer in Physiology, Oxford; joint editor and founder of "Journal of Hygiene"; has served on several departmental committees, and carried out special inquiries for Government departments; author of "Blue Books on the Cause of Death in Colliery Explosions," 1895; "Ankylostomiasis in Mines," 1902-1903, etc.—["Who's Who."]

fa fa, James Alexander HALDANE (1768-1851), in the East India Company's naval service till 1797; then devoted himself to itinerary evangelization in Scotland; author of several theological treatises.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa fa bro, Robert HALDANE (1764-1842), in the Royal Navy till 1797; sold his estate in Stirlingshire to devote the proceeds to missions in India, but was prevented by the Government from carrying out this scheme. Carried on evangelistic work in Geneva and the South of France, and co-operated in Scotland with his brother, endowing places of worship and training young ministers. Wrote several theological treatises.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa bro, Daniel Rutherford HALDANE (1824-1887), M.D., LL.D., President of Edinburgh College of Physicians.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me bro, Sir John BURDON-SANDERSON, Bart, M.D., F.R.S., etc.—(q.v.)

bro, Rt. Hon. Richard Burdon HALDANE, P.C., M.P., LL.D., a distinguished politician; author of books on philosophy.—["Who's Who."]

si, Elizabeth Sanderson HALDANE, authoress of "Life of Ferrier," translator of Hegel's "History of Philosophy"; promoter of education and of reforms in Scotland.

fa bro son, Alexander Chinnery HALDANE, LL.D., Bishop of Argyll and the Isles.

fa bro son, Lieutenant-Colonel James Aylmer Lowthorpe HALDANE (b. 1862), D.S.O., served with distinction in Chitral, Tirah, and South Africa, and has won rapid promotion; author of "How we Escaped from Pretoria."—["Who's Who."]

me fa me bro, John SCOTT, first Earl of ELDON (1751-1838), famous Lord Chancellor of England.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

me fa me bro, William SCOTT, first Baron STOWELL (1745-1836), Judge of High Court of Admiralty.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa fa me bro, Adam DUNCAN (1731-1804), cr. Viscount DUNCAN of CAMPERDOWN 1797, after the Battle of Camperdown, in which he defeated the Dutch Admiral, De Winter.—["Dict. N. Biog.," and "Life," by his great-grandson, the present Earl of Camperdown.]

fa me me bro, Sir Ralph ABERCROMBY (1734-1801), General; served with distinction in Flanders, 1795; commanded expedition against French in West Indies, 1795; commanded troops in Mediterranean, 1800; defeated French at Alexandria, where he died of his wounds.—["Dict. N. Biog."]

fa me me bro, Sir Robert ABERCROMBY (1740-1827), General; Governor and Commander-in-Chief, Bombay, 1790; reduced Tippoo Sultan, 1792; conducted second Rohilla War.—["Dict. N. Biog."]



William Abbott HERDMAN (b. 1858), D.Sc., F.R.S., P.L.S., General Secretary of British Association, Professor of Natural History, University of Liverpool, since 1881; has worked particularly at marine biology; was one of the founders of the Port Erin Biological Station, and of the seafish hatchery at Piel; was sent to Ceylon 1901-1902 to investigate the pearl oyster fishery for the Government (results published by the Royal Society, 1903-1905); author of numerous zoological works.—["Who's Who."]

1  2     Next Part
Home - Random Browse